xkcd: Heath Data
https://xkcd.com/2620/

“Causality is the leading cause of death in this country”.

Yup, the world too.

Explained at:
https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/2620:_Health_Data

Lynn

On Tuesday, May 17, 2022 at 3:53:01 PM UTC-4, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> xkcd: Heath Data
> https://xkcd.com/2620/
>
> “Causality is the leading cause of death in this country”..
>
> Yup, the world too.

The leading cause of cancer in laboratory rats is scientists.

In article <b3d29004-9e56-4745-a813-314b9c3351f6n@googlegroups.com>,
Ross Presser <rpresser@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Tuesday, May 17, 2022 at 3:53:01 PM UTC-4, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>> xkcd: Heath Data
>> https://xkcd.com/2620/
>>
>> “Causality is the leading cause of death in this country”.
>>
>> Yup, the world too.
>
>The leading cause of cancer in laboratory rats is scientists.

I assume you mean the patient lab assistants who bred strains of
lab rat who were all clones of each other who were 100% fated to
develop cancer ... the variable being *how soon* they would
develop it, under the influence of a controlled environment. (I
used to work for a statistician who sourced published works and
published summaries.)

--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Www.kithrup.com/~djheydt/

On Wednesday, May 18, 2022 at 10:12:22 AM UTC-4, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> In article <b3d29004-9e56-4745...@googlegroups.com>,
> Ross Presser <rpre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Tuesday, May 17, 2022 at 3:53:01 PM UTC-4, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> >> xkcd: Heath Data
> >> https://xkcd.com/2620/
> >>
> >> “Causality is the leading cause of death in this country”.
> >>
> >> Yup, the world too.
> >
> >The leading cause of cancer in laboratory rats is scientists.
> I assume you mean the patient lab assistants who bred strains of
> lab rat who were all clones of each other who were 100% fated to
> develop cancer ... the variable being *how soon* they would
> develop it, under the influence of a controlled environment. (I
> used to work for a statistician who sourced published works and
> published summaries.)

Well ... I think you can blame *any* cancer in *any* lab rat on
scientists, regardless of which clone line they're in or what it
was designed for.

I'm not saying it's a bad thing to cause lab rats to have cancer,
if the study goals are significant enough. But the cause is definitely
whoever owns that rat. It's not like the rat has its own self-selected
bad behaviors we can blame it on, like voluntary smoking or digging
up ground near Chernobyl.

On Thu, 19 May 2022 07:33:48 -0700 (PDT), Ross Presser
<rpresser@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, May 18, 2022 at 10:12:22 AM UTC-4, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>> In article <b3d29004-9e56-4745...@googlegroups.com>,
>> Ross Presser <rpre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Tuesday, May 17, 2022 at 3:53:01 PM UTC-4, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>> >> xkcd: Heath Data
>> >> https://xkcd.com/2620/
>> >>
>> >> “Causality is the leading cause of death in this country”.
>> >>
>> >> Yup, the world too.
>> >
>> >The leading cause of cancer in laboratory rats is scientists.
>> I assume you mean the patient lab assistants who bred strains of
>> lab rat who were all clones of each other who were 100% fated to
>> develop cancer ... the variable being *how soon* they would
>> develop it, under the influence of a controlled environment. (I
>> used to work for a statistician who sourced published works and
>> published summaries.)
>
>Well ... I think you can blame *any* cancer in *any* lab rat on
>scientists, regardless of which clone line they're in or what it
>was designed for.
>
>I'm not saying it's a bad thing to cause lab rats to have cancer,
>if the study goals are significant enough. But the cause is definitely
>whoever owns that rat. It's not like the rat has its own self-selected
>bad behaviors we can blame it on, like voluntary smoking or digging
>up ground near Chernobyl.

The problem, such as it is, has two heads:
-- just because something causes cancer in rats doesn't mean it does
so in humans
-- there was a saying in the 60s or 70s (or possibly even today):
"/Everything/ causes cancer in lab rats"

So, for whatever reason, these experiments may not have been as
helpful as intended.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Thu, 19 May 2022 10:03:19 -0700, Paul S Person
<psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

>On Thu, 19 May 2022 07:33:48 -0700 (PDT), Ross Presser
><rpresser@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Wednesday, May 18, 2022 at 10:12:22 AM UTC-4, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>>> In article <b3d29004-9e56-4745...@googlegroups.com>,
>>> Ross Presser <rpre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >On Tuesday, May 17, 2022 at 3:53:01 PM UTC-4, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>> >> xkcd: Heath Data
>>> >> https://xkcd.com/2620/
>>> >>
>>> >> “Causality is the leading cause of death in this country”.
>>> >>
>>> >> Yup, the world too.
>>> >
>>> >The leading cause of cancer in laboratory rats is scientists.
>>> I assume you mean the patient lab assistants who bred strains of
>>> lab rat who were all clones of each other who were 100% fated to
>>> develop cancer ... the variable being *how soon* they would
>>> develop it, under the influence of a controlled environment. (I
>>> used to work for a statistician who sourced published works and
>>> published summaries.)
>>
>>Well ... I think you can blame *any* cancer in *any* lab rat on
>>scientists, regardless of which clone line they're in or what it
>>was designed for.
>>
>>I'm not saying it's a bad thing to cause lab rats to have cancer,
>>if the study goals are significant enough. But the cause is definitely
>>whoever owns that rat. It's not like the rat has its own self-selected
>>bad behaviors we can blame it on, like voluntary smoking or digging
>>up ground near Chernobyl.
>
>The problem, such as it is, has two heads:
>-- just because something causes cancer in rats doesn't mean it does
>so in humans
>-- there was a saying in the 60s or 70s (or possibly even today):
>"/Everything/ causes cancer in lab rats"
>
>So, for whatever reason, these experiments may not have been as
>helpful as intended.

And then there is Aspartame, which is said to be the only substance
known to Man that is completely benign to laboratory rats.

On 5/19/2022 3:07 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Thu, 19 May 2022 10:03:19 -0700, Paul S Person
> <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 19 May 2022 07:33:48 -0700 (PDT), Ross Presser
>> <rpresser@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wednesday, May 18, 2022 at 10:12:22 AM UTC-4, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>>>> In article <b3d29004-9e56-4745...@googlegroups.com>,
>>>> Ross Presser <rpre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, May 17, 2022 at 3:53:01 PM UTC-4, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>>>>> xkcd: Heath Data
>>>>>> https://xkcd.com/2620/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> “Causality is the leading cause of death in this country”.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yup, the world too.
>>>>>
>>>>> The leading cause of cancer in laboratory rats is scientists.
>>>> I assume you mean the patient lab assistants who bred strains of
>>>> lab rat who were all clones of each other who were 100% fated to
>>>> develop cancer ... the variable being *how soon* they would
>>>> develop it, under the influence of a controlled environment. (I
>>>> used to work for a statistician who sourced published works and
>>>> published summaries.)
>>>
>>> Well ... I think you can blame *any* cancer in *any* lab rat on
>>> scientists, regardless of which clone line they're in or what it
>>> was designed for.
>>>
>>> I'm not saying it's a bad thing to cause lab rats to have cancer,
>>> if the study goals are significant enough. But the cause is definitely
>>> whoever owns that rat. It's not like the rat has its own self-selected
>>> bad behaviors we can blame it on, like voluntary smoking or digging
>>> up ground near Chernobyl.
>>
>> The problem, such as it is, has two heads:
>> -- just because something causes cancer in rats doesn't mean it does
>> so in humans
>> -- there was a saying in the 60s or 70s (or possibly even today):
>> "/Everything/ causes cancer in lab rats"
>>
>> So, for whatever reason, these experiments may not have been as
>> helpful as intended.
>
> And then there is Aspartame, which is said to be the only substance
> known to Man that is completely benign to laboratory rats.

Other than plain old water.

Lynn

On Thu, 19 May 2022 16:49:29 -0500, Lynn McGuire
<lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 5/19/2022 3:07 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>> On Thu, 19 May 2022 10:03:19 -0700, Paul S Person
>> <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 19 May 2022 07:33:48 -0700 (PDT), Ross Presser
>>> <rpresser@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wednesday, May 18, 2022 at 10:12:22 AM UTC-4, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>>>>> In article <b3d29004-9e56-4745...@googlegroups.com>,
>>>>> Ross Presser <rpre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 17, 2022 at 3:53:01 PM UTC-4, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>>>>>> xkcd: Heath Data
>>>>>>> https://xkcd.com/2620/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> “Causality is the leading cause of death in this country”.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yup, the world too.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The leading cause of cancer in laboratory rats is scientists.
>>>>> I assume you mean the patient lab assistants who bred strains of
>>>>> lab rat who were all clones of each other who were 100% fated to
>>>>> develop cancer ... the variable being *how soon* they would
>>>>> develop it, under the influence of a controlled environment. (I
>>>>> used to work for a statistician who sourced published works and
>>>>> published summaries.)
>>>>
>>>> Well ... I think you can blame *any* cancer in *any* lab rat on
>>>> scientists, regardless of which clone line they're in or what it
>>>> was designed for.
>>>>
>>>> I'm not saying it's a bad thing to cause lab rats to have cancer,
>>>> if the study goals are significant enough. But the cause is definitely
>>>> whoever owns that rat. It's not like the rat has its own self-selected
>>>> bad behaviors we can blame it on, like voluntary smoking or digging
>>>> up ground near Chernobyl.
>>>
>>> The problem, such as it is, has two heads:
>>> -- just because something causes cancer in rats doesn't mean it does
>>> so in humans
>>> -- there was a saying in the 60s or 70s (or possibly even today):
>>> "/Everything/ causes cancer in lab rats"
>>>
>>> So, for whatever reason, these experiments may not have been as
>>> helpful as intended.
>>
>> And then there is Aspartame, which is said to be the only substance
>> known to Man that is completely benign to laboratory rats.
>
>Other than plain old water.

You might want to look up the several ways that plain old water can
kill you.

J Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> schrieb:
> On Thu, 19 May 2022 16:49:29 -0500, Lynn McGuire
><lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On 5/19/2022 3:07 PM, J. Clarke wrote:

>>> And then there is Aspartame, which is said to be the only substance
>>> known to Man that is completely benign to laboratory rats.
>>
>>Other than plain old water.
>
> You might want to look up the several ways that plain old water can
> kill you.

Or read up on the dangers of dihydrogene monixide.

On 5/20/2022 9:23 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Thu, 19 May 2022 16:49:29 -0500, Lynn McGuire
> <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 5/19/2022 3:07 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>> On Thu, 19 May 2022 10:03:19 -0700, Paul S Person
>>> <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 19 May 2022 07:33:48 -0700 (PDT), Ross Presser
>>>> <rpresser@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wednesday, May 18, 2022 at 10:12:22 AM UTC-4, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>>>>>> In article <b3d29004-9e56-4745...@googlegroups.com>,
>>>>>> Ross Presser <rpre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 17, 2022 at 3:53:01 PM UTC-4, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>>>>>>> xkcd: Heath Data
>>>>>>>> https://xkcd.com/2620/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> “Causality is the leading cause of death in this country”.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yup, the world too.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The leading cause of cancer in laboratory rats is scientists.
>>>>>> I assume you mean the patient lab assistants who bred strains of
>>>>>> lab rat who were all clones of each other who were 100% fated to
>>>>>> develop cancer ... the variable being *how soon* they would
>>>>>> develop it, under the influence of a controlled environment. (I
>>>>>> used to work for a statistician who sourced published works and
>>>>>> published summaries.)
>>>>>
>>>>> Well ... I think you can blame *any* cancer in *any* lab rat on
>>>>> scientists, regardless of which clone line they're in or what it
>>>>> was designed for.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not saying it's a bad thing to cause lab rats to have cancer,
>>>>> if the study goals are significant enough. But the cause is definitely
>>>>> whoever owns that rat. It's not like the rat has its own self-selected
>>>>> bad behaviors we can blame it on, like voluntary smoking or digging
>>>>> up ground near Chernobyl.
>>>>
>>>> The problem, such as it is, has two heads:
>>>> -- just because something causes cancer in rats doesn't mean it does
>>>> so in humans
>>>> -- there was a saying in the 60s or 70s (or possibly even today):
>>>> "/Everything/ causes cancer in lab rats"
>>>>
>>>> So, for whatever reason, these experiments may not have been as
>>>> helpful as intended.
>>>
>>> And then there is Aspartame, which is said to be the only substance
>>> known to Man that is completely benign to laboratory rats.
>>
>> Other than plain old water.
>
> You might want to look up the several ways that plain old water can
> kill you.

Oh yes, I am aware that dihydrogen monoxide is one of the leading causes
of death. In fact, millions of genetically modified rats died in the
Houston Medical Center during Tropical Storm Allison in 2001 since they
were in the basements of the various hospital buildings. The Medical
Center was flooded with four feet of storm water above Main Street.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropical_Storm_Allison

My wife took 52 treatments of Herceptin in 2005/6 for her advanced
breast cancer. Each treatment required the spleens of 50 rats.

Lynn